SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Balvinder Kaur vs State on 15 October, 2019



SC No. 74/2016

1. Smt. Balvinder Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Harjeet Singh
R/o B-145, Uday Vihar,
Chander Vihar, New Delhi.

2. Baby Jasleen Kaur
D/o Sh. Harjeet Singh
Represented through her natural guardian/mother

…… Petitioners

1. State

2. Sh. Kamaljeet Singh @ Kawaljeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gurmeet Singh
R/o H. No. 1, Military Farm
Mawana Road, Meerut Cantt. (U.P.)
…… Respondents

Date of Institution : 02.07.2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 15.10.2019
Date of decision : 15.10.2019


1. The present succession petition has been filed
under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter,
referred to as ‘the Act’) by Smt. Balvinder Kaur for herself as
well as for her minor daughter Baby Jasleen Kaur
(hereinafter, referred to as ‘the petitioners’) for grant of
SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 1 of 7
Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.

succession certificate in respect of debts and securities in the
name of deceased husband Late Sh. Harjeet Singh (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the deceased’).

2. The petition was instituted on 02.07.2013. Notice
of the petition was issued to the general public by way of
publication which was served on 11.02.2019 through ‘Veer
Arjun’. None from the general public filed any objections.

3. Respondent no. 2 put his appearance through his
counsel on 22.08.2019. Reply was filed by respondent no. 2 on
25.09.2013 in which it is denied that deceased was died intestate
as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that during
unmarried time of deceased, he adopted respondent no. 2 as his
son after executing a registered Godnama dated 17.04.1999 and
accordingly he became the nominee in the official record of the
deceased vide form no. 8 executed on 12.07.2001. He further
stated that will dated 25.03.2009 was also executed in his
favour. It is denied that deceased left behind the petitioners as
legal heirs under Class I of the schedule and there are no other
class heirs of the deceased. It is submitted that present petition
has been filed only to harass the respondent no. 2 and same is
liable to be rejected.

4. Rejoinder to the reply was filed on behalf of
petitioners wherein the averments made in the petition were
reaffirmed and assertions made in the reply were denied.

SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 2 of 7

Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.


5. In petitioner’s evidence, petitioner examined herself
as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. She also relied upon the documents:

1. Ex. PW1/1(OSR) : Death certificate of deceased,
2. Mark-A : Copy of her Voter I-card.
3.Mark-B : Copy of birth certificate of petitioner
no. 2.

4. PW1/4 (colly) : Certified copy of record and accounts
of deceased.

5. Ex. PW1/5 : Copy of letter no. 86905/D/Q/28/MF-

6. Ex. PW 1/6 : Copy of application under Section 24
Ex. PW 1/7 HMA and order on the said

6. She was duly cross-examined by respondent no. 2.
No other witness was examined by the petitioner and on
13.03.2014, petitioner’s evidence was closed and thereafter,
matter was listed for respondent’s evidence.


7. In respondent’s evidence, respondent examined
Smt. Harjinder Kaur as RW-1, who tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit as Ex. RW 1/A and relied upon the document
Ex. RW1/1 and Ex. RW1/2. She was cross-examined by the

SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 3 of 7

Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.

8. Statement of RW-2 Sh. K. R. Kumar was recorded
on 25.07.2016 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex. RW2/A and relied upon the document which is a copy of
will Ex. RW 1/2. He was also cross-examined by the petitioners.

9. RW-2 Sh. Desh Raj Singh, Record Keeper (Abhi
Lekh Pal), Sub-Registrar office, Meerut, UP was examined on
24.02.2018 who brought the details in respect of Adoption Deed
(Godnama) which was executed between Smt. Harjinder Kaur
and Sh. Harjit Singh for adoption of child namely Kamaljeet
duly registered at their office on 17.04.1999, ledger book (prati
pustak sankhya) no. IV, Volume No. (Khand)-81, at page no.
303 to 306 at serial no. 612 as Ex. RW2/1 as compared with
their record, however there is an alteration at first line at point A
is not mentioned in their record but name of daughter of Sh.
Harjeet Singh is correct as per their record and remaining
contents are true and correct with comparison with their record.
He further stated that he have furnished copy of his Aadhar
Card as Ex.RW2/2(OSR). He was cross-examined by

No other witness was examined by the respondent
and on 24.02.2018 respondent’s evidence was closed.

10. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final
arguments. Final arguments were not addressed by both the Ld.
Counsels despite granted several opportunities. I have gone
through the record carefully.

SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 4 of 7

Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.

11. The Succession Certificate Under Section 372 of
the Act is issued as law abhors escheat and vacuum. In Madhvi
Amma Bhawani Amma Ors. Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai
Meenakshi, AIR 2000 SC 2301, 2000 (3) ALT 35 SC, 2001
(49) BLJR 813, it was held as under:

“The enquiry in proceedings for grant of
succession certificate is to be summary, and the
Court, without determining questions of law or
fact, which seem to it to be too intricate and
difficult for determination, should grant the
certificate to the person who appears to have prima
facie the best title thereto. In such cases the Court
has not to determine definitely and finally as to
who has the best right to the estate. All that it is
required to do is to hold a summary enquiry into
the right to the certificate, with a view, on the one
hand, to facilitate the collection of debts due to the
deceased and prevent their being time-barred,
owing (for instance) to dispute between the heirs
inter se as to their preferential right to succession,
and, on the other hand, to afford protection to the
debtors by appointing a representative of the
deceased and authorising him to give a valid
discharge for the debt. The grant of a certificate to
a person does not give him an absolute right to the
debt nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment of
the claims of the heirs inter se”.

12. Admittedly petitioner no. 1 is the legal wedded
wife of deceased Late Sh. Harjeet Singh and petitioner no. 2 is
his daughter, therefore, they are the class-I Legal Heirs.
Respondent no. 2 has taken the plea that he is the adopted son of
Late Sh. Harjeet Singh vide adoption deed Ex. RW 1/2. RW-1
during her cross-examination stated that her husband was at his
home at the time of execution said adoption deed. She further
stated that she took the consent of her husband before execution
of the adoption deed, however, the consent is not found

SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 5 of 7
Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.

recorded anywhere on the adoption deed when confronted to the
witness RW-1. Section 9 clause (2) proviso of “The Hindu
Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956” says that no such right
shall be exercised by either of the parents without the consent of
other. In the instant case, the consent of the father of respondent
no. 2 at the time of adoption has not been established on record.
This objection of respondent no. 2 could not substantiated,
hence, no claim can be laid by respondent no. 2 on this premise.

13. The other plea taken by respondent no. 2 is that a
will dated 25.03.2009 exhibited on record as Ex. RW1/1 has
been executed by deceased Sh. Harjeet Singh in favour of
respondent no. 2 Sh. Kamaljeet Singh. RW-2 Sh. K. R. Kumar
one of the attesting witness of the will has testified before the
court in his affidavit of examination-in-chief, the witness has
categorically stated that he signed the will as attesting witness.
This witness was cross-examined by the petitioners, however,
no material contradiction occurred during his cross-
examination. No contrary evidence proving the will as forged
and fabricated document has been led by the petitioners in their
evidence on record. The testimony of RW-2 remained
unrebutted and uncontroverted. Prima-facie the will Ex. RW1/1
has been proved to be in favour of respondent no. 2. In the said
will, it has been categorically mentioned that respondent no. 2
and the un-married sister of the deceased Ms. Ravinder Kaur
shall be entitled to the service benefits and pensionary benefits
of the deceased, thus, petitioners are not entitled to succession
certificate qua the debts and securities as prayed herein.

SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 6 of 7

Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.

Respondent no. 2 has to file a separate succession petition in
case, he wish to avail any relief.

14. In view of the observation given above and the
evidence led on record, the petition of the petitioner deserves to
be dismissed. Accordingly, same stands dismissed.

15. No further order is required to be passed. File be
consigned to the Record Room.

signed by


This Judgment contains Seven pages and each page has been
signed by me.

signed by



SC No. 74/2016 Page No. 7 of 7
Balvinder Kaur Vs. State Ors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation